This morning the Today Show had a segment on working women, and a theory that women's hormones make them less competitive, and less aggressive in the workplace, than men. The theory, apparently, explains why women take jobs that offer less material rewards, and more warm and fuzzies (e.g. teaching). The research is explained in a book, The Sexual Paradox, which discusses the idea that "women tend not to seek out the highest status or the most lucrative
careers: They're reluctant to take jobs whose demands won't allow them
the choice to focus on other aspects of their lives."

Tons of articles have been written about equality in the workplace, and equality in the home. One that I have saved is one of many that states that regardless of income, wives still do more housework than their husbands. Which is why as often as these types of article are published, there's another one telling men that if they want more sex, they should do more housework.

In any case, it's not just that women aren't equal in the workplace, it's that they may not want the same type of jobs. We're seeing a backslide in numbers, "[k]ey indicators such as pay, board seats, and corporate-officer posts all reflect a leveling off or drop in recent years." This article about sexism and the workplace suggests that perhaps we think that we've conquered sexism, so there's no reason to address it. Additionally, many of the women who are powerful or top earners aren't incredibly feminine.

My friend was in town this weekend and it was something we discussed - not only our professional lives, but how they fit into our personal goals. We touched on the Presidential election, in the course of these discussions, and the general perception that sexism no longer exists. If this was true, however, feminism wouldn't be seen so negatively, it would just seem passe. So women who want the corner office are, according to the first article, less "feminine" and we see that women who succeed may, in fact, show less femininity, whether in manner or dress. In the meantime, men have learned to capitalize on the positives of being feminine without the baggage, and are excelling in the workplace. Oh, it makes me so glad I'm involved in the women's movement, however tangential.

This week was not only MLK Day, but Roe v. Wade Day. Additionally, I lost another family member to cancer. In any case, there was a lot you should have read about:

Roe v. Wade Day/Abortion:Frances Kissling (formerly of CFFC) and Kate Michelman (formerly of NARAL) wrote an op-ed in the LA Times about abortion, and, really, the shift in perception around abortion. They say that one thing the pro-choice folks need to engage in is a discussion about the "challenges" of the movement, including the judgment of women for getting pregnant in the first place.

Saletan says that pro-choicers need to message abortion with the goal of zero, same as teen pregnancy.

Reproducing:Related to the LA Times op-ed, a study out about Indiana shows that about 80% of black babies are born to unwed mothers. Single mothers have lower levels of education and higher rates of poverty than married mothers, although that doesn't necessarily include those older single moms.

Italy has ruled that it is now legal to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos. The ruling, applicable only to the Rome area, will be reviewed by a higher court. Also, don't forget, that in Italy only 3 embryos can be implanted at a time.

So while feminism opened up options for a lot of women, there was an ensuing backlash against feminism, and now there's this embrace of everything under the sun as feminism. Want to walk around with a dog collar being led by your boyfriend? Who's to say that's not feminist? Stripping? Feminist. Housewife? Totally feminist (not by all). I'm not about to make any statements about it right now, but it certainly seems to be a trend that the idea of "choice" whether related to feminism or abortion, is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, is one's choice really off bounds for social comment?

Science:The Pill has an extended effect on preventing ovarian cancer, the number one cause of gynecologic cancer deaths in the United States. Apparently, this is leading folks in the U.K. to renew a call to make the Pill available over-the-counter. Additionally, caffeine decreases the risk of ovarian cancer, while alcohol and tobacco use play no role in it.

As always, there's way more to blog about, but I have to get moving. Have a great weekend!

I'm moving this weekend! It's chaos around here, and doing this news round up helps me clean out my inbox. Which, you know, probably shouldn't be my first priority, but other cleaning involves getting up, and buying boxes and whatnot. And I'm not moving until...tomorrow...Anyway, here goes:

Babies:Now, I know we talked a while ago about this Russian day of procreation, and it's been all over the news this week! Slate has a nice round up on what countries are doing with regards to procreation and population - what kind of economic or other policies can a government implement to encourage or discourage procreations? The Beeb covered this a few months ago, which you may have read about on this blog.

In the U.S., high Latino birth rates are the main component of Latino population growth (rather than immigration). "Nationally, Johnson calculates, there are seven Latino births for every
death, compared with 1.3 white births for every death."

Gender:The Post has a compelling piece about gender in South Asia. This closely mirrors the recent Slate piece on how television is helping to empower women in rural India. The Post story is about a girl in Bangladesh who is being pressured to get married at age 13. She is the star of a TV show in which her character is urged to either drop out of school and work, or drop out of school and marry. Gender issues in South Asia are incredibly complicated, and sex-selective abortions are rampant. So rampant, in fact, that India banned the use of prenatal ultrasound for sex identification. There are still lots of ads for that service, as anyone who's driven down a street in New Delhi can tell you.

Gender discrimination suit alleges, among other things, that women were denied promotions and better accounts because they refused to take part in such "business activities" as visiting strip clubs.

And I know we just talked about this whole stay at home husband/gender roles thing, but here it is again, in New York Magazine. "Well into feminism’s second generation, there are finally a significant
number of women reaching parity with the men in their fields—not to
mention surpassing them—and winning the salary, bonuses, and perks that
signify their arrival...In 2001, for example, wives earned more than
their spouses in almost a third of married households where the wife
worked. Yet this proud professional achievement often seems to have
unhappy consequences at home...Indeed, there’s little evidence to show that as women acquire financial
muscle, relations between the sexes have evolved successfully to
accommodate the new balance of power. Neither the newly liberated alpha
women nor their shell-shocked beta spouses seem comfortable with the
role reversal." Just read the article

Law:The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this week that a doctor has no duty to tell an abortion patient that the fetus/embryo is a person. If you read this story you'll see why terminology is so important (am I a broken record, or what?) A nurse referred to "the baby" when the embryo was only 6 weeks. Dictionaries define baby as birth to one year, although many refer to "the baby" when having an abortion. It's a hard concept to grasp, I'll grant you that, but one that I think should be made clear. In my old clinic we decided to use whatever terminology the woman was most comfortable with, and using the word "baby" always made me uncomfortable. Regardless, informed consent is an important part of medical care, and I'm not sure the doctor's assertion that the fetus was "just blood" was an accurate statement either. In any case, the plaintiff alleged that the doctor failed to inform her that the fetus was a human being with whom she had an existing relationship (why the doctor would be the one to tell her about her relationships is beyond me) and the court sided with the doctor. This biased counseling thing is fairly widespread, and getting worse.

And the animal story: Salmon spawn trout in genetic experiment. As a picky grammar note, young fish are not called "babies." I know it's a complicated point, that not everything has to be anthropomorphized, but let's try?

Washington State pharmacists are suing over a state regulation that, shockingly, requires them to dispense drugs. Of course, it's the morning after pill, but since the pill is behind the counter, and has to be dispensed by a pharmacist, um, the pharmacists are going to have to DISPENSE THE PILLS. Seriously, get another job if you don't want to hand out medication. I, for example, never am asked for medication all day. Not once. Okay, maybe if someone has a headache. But there are tons of jobs that don't requiring handing out pills. Unfortunatly, "pharmacist" isn't one of them.

Women taking accutane are still getting pregnant. I took this drug many years ago, and I had to be on the pill, have monthly pregnancy tests, sign something saying I understood that I was not to get pregnant and that the fetus would be all messed up and I should probably have an abortion, AND, each pill had a cardboard picture over each foil blister pack with the profile of a pregnant woman and a big red line through it.

Oh my: induced...miscarriage? abortion? "gloopity glop"? In any case, it'll be an interesting legal case, as the MD law being used to hold the woman has an exception for women whose behavior harms their own fetuses, as do most "fetal homicide" laws. The woman also had two more dead fetuses in her house.

Economics, my old love. Sometimes I wish I was Gary Becker, but I'm sure we all do, at some point or another. Right?

Our Bodies, Our Blog sends us to an article on the value of a working mother. Not the dollar value, but out societal value (which, we should note, are theoretically the same thing in a capitalist market-based economy). Why, the article asks, are Americans so conflicted about working mothers?

As anyone with a basic understanding of economic theory can tell you, the opportunity cost of children rises as women become more educated. This one of the approaches to stemming fertility (and poverty) among the poor in developing countries, not to mention that education decreases infant mortality. In many developed countries this economic reality has created a potential social and financial crisis, in that there is a population decline. The BBC covered this issue (as did this blog) a little over a year ago.

The Economist argues that the government needs to plan societal benefits (as is retirement ages) in order to address this obvious social trend. Others might argue that the state should step in and try to encourage people to have children. And so the role of government in relation to our economic and reproductive choices takes center stage on a fairly macro scale. I'm not talking about your ability to walk into a clinic here, I'm talking about large, societal policies that may encourage or discourage people from having children, and affect the timing thereof. And this I find fascinating.

Kos has an article on the lack of access to quality abortion care. I think the article is a nice introduction to what most of you already know - I appreciate the post, but I would have liked a little more in-depth analysis or some concrete suggestions. Kos also has a longer article on the history and politicization of abortion in the U.S. Ms. Magazine is doing an appeal to fund investigations into deaths from illegal abortions in Kenya. Creepy news about the anti-choicers in Kansas & the Operation Rescue gang. Portugal abortion law takes effect.

Freedom of Choice Act (S.1173 & H.R. 1964) have been introduced. See if your members are co-sponsors. Then, participate in the Feminist Majority Foundation's Call in Day, tomorrow, April 25. Call the Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your members.

Gender pay gap seen from year one. "Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the research indicates that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained and is likely due to sex discrimination." The study apparently (on p.38, which I haven't gotten to yet) takes into account the fact that women often seek lower-paid jobs in the non-profit sector or those with increased work flexibility due to child-rearing demands. Mainstream press coverage around. Well done, AAUW.

My flight to Boston was fabulous - a whole hour of nothing but writing! I finished Get to Work on the way to the airport, and have reviewed the book in the attached document. Seriously, best flight ever! Read my review: Download get_to_work.pdf